Privacy Act access to information case – files lost by defendant before hearing – for that and other reasons relating to the way the litigation had been conducted by the defendant the Tribunal directed defendant to pay all of the plaintiff’s actual and reasonable expenses amounting to about $1,800 (although note award not specifically quantified). One day hearing. Costs award affirmed on appeal to High Court: Winter v Jans (Hamilton High Court, CIV 2003-419-854, 6 April 2004 per Paterson J)

Plaintiff abandoned claim on eve of substantive hearing – defendant’s preparation complete – actual costs of $6,682.50 had been incurred (excluding costs on the costs argument) – Tribunal awarded reasonable contribution of $4,400 uplifted by $1,000 to reflect last minute abandonment of claim, plus a further $1,000 in respect of the argument on costs (which included issues relating to the particular position of the Director of Human Rights Proceedings).

Two-day hearing; note the award was for all that was claimed, because the amount claimed was for disbursements and only $525 on account of legal costs for the whole of the two day hearing, and all attendances before that.

Award after two day hearing about alleged racial and other discrimination, but note the award also includes costs in respect of various ‘on the papers’ determinations as well – actual costs of $51,331.91 had been incurred.

Effectively a three-day hearing, although the days were spread over several months – actual costs incurred by the successful defendant were in excess of $62,500 – note Tribunal declined to apply the District Court Scale.

Award made in respect of hearings under Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 that lasted for a total of 8 days, although note two cases were heard at the same time and there was a mix of success and failure, including a decision by the plaintiff to abandon one particular claim at the hearing - total costs incurred by plaintiff in respect of successful claim had been in excess of $52,000.

One-day hearing of privacy claim - a pre-hearing offer of settlement by plaintiff ought to have been accepted by defendants – circumstances close to justifying full indemnity award - plaintiff legally aided with actual costs over $4,000.

Four-day hearing of alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Act – note issues as to whether this was a ‘test case’; also issues in relation to part-success and cost warnings – total costs incurred by defendant in excess of $60,000 – costs of $15,000 awarded with an earlier award of $1500 for costs on an interlocutory application confirmed, giving a total of $16,500 in the litigation – note costs award upheld on appeal see Smith v Air New Zealand (Wellington High Court, CIV 2005-485-2198, 15 December 2008 per Clifford J).

Matter set down for hearing, but plaintiff failed to appear at hearing and thereby effectively abandoned claim – actual costs had been incurred by defendant in excess of $12,000 - award of $4,500 for preparation etc was increased by $2,000 to reflect the way the case had been abandoned.

Two and a half-day hearing including written submissions filed after the hearing as well - also note that one claim under one of the Privacy Principles was effectively abandoned by the plaintiff at the hearing – actual costs incurred by defendant in excess of $26,850 – significant interlocutory processes before hearing but plaintiff not to responsible for those – plaintiff did succeed on one point at issue.

The plaintiff had represented himself in the proceedings, with the only question being as to his out-of-pocket expenses for the hearing itself. In fact the Police had paid many of those expenses in order to have the hearing at a venue that was convenient to the Police. The hearing itself occupied five days but for these reasons the award was effectively limited to reimbursement of a few outstanding out of pocket expenses.

Costs of $3,000 awarded on a reasonable contribution basis to the date of a ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ offer, and then a further $32,503.82 on a full indemnity basis for the period thereafter. Two day hearing in the Tribunal. On appeal, the Tribunal’s approach to costs was substantially upheld, but the High Court adjusted the total sum downwards so that it was limited to 85% of costs after the ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ offer (note the figure in this table is the adjusted High Court figure).

This Health and Disability Commissioner Act case occupied four days of hearing. The defendant was legally aided, the successful plaintiff asked the Tribunal to assess what costs would have been awarded in the absence of legal aid.

Privacy Act claim - despite an early offer of settlement that was not made on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, the successful defendant did not ask for indemnity costs – there was however a significant issue as to whether and to what extent the plaintiff should be regarded as having been legally aided in the proceedings (and thus protected by s.40 of the Legal Services Act 2000 as it stood before amendment in March 2007) – hearing took four days although there had been significant interlocutories and the hearing was spread over a long period.

The case involved the hearing of several different claims against the same defendant – five days – preceded by various pre-hearing issues that had required determination – total costs incurred by the plaintiff had come to $55,168.25.

This was a matter dealt with by way of formal proof - defendant did not appear at the scheduled hearing - there had, however, been a number of preliminary arguments which delayed the matter and compounded costs.

Formal proof matter lasting less than a day – application under s.92B(4) of the Human Rights Act 1993 to enforce a settlement agreement – no appearance by defendant – Tribunal satisfied plaintiff should never have been put to expense of filing the claim – full solicitor/client costs of $7,469.30 awarded.

One day hearing of application to strike out on grounds claim did not disclose a tenable cause of action – application successful – Tribunal noted that the plaintiff had insisted on a vivavoce hearing when matter could have been dealt with on the papers – also plaintiff should have known better than to bring claim; although award tempered to an extent because human rights-related issues raised – actual costs of $17,824.45 – reasonable contribution fixed at $7,500.

Proceedings which should never have been brought giving rise to significant costs including attendance at two day hearing – plaintiffs refused to discontinue notwithstanding clear warning about costs in relation to Williams – indemnity costs to Williams for all costs incurred thereafter – reasonable contribution costs to Koller, but amount set to reflect various criticisms of plaintiff’s conduct of the litigation

Claim by successful defendant for costs after incurring actual costs of $60,848.66 – reasonable contribution – award tempered by fact that although plaintiff had failed to show relevant harm, a breach of privacy principle 8 had been established – against that costs increased because the claim was more difficult to respond to as a result of plaintiff’s delays in bringing it – hearing occupied 3 days.

Claim for indemnity costs after a two day hearing, although there had also been a number of matters that were dealt with ‘on the papers’ (including final submissions after the hearing) – indemnity costs awarded after defendant refused Calderbank offer

PA - successful defendant incurred actual costs of $54,000 to defend claim – two day hearing, although extended hours on the second day – claim for reasonable contribution cost down to date of Calderbank offer then indemnity costs thereafter – indemnity costs declined, but reasonable contribution assessed to take into account factors such as failure to settle.

HRA - self-represented plaintiff – discontinuance before hearing – costs of $4,000 sought by first defendants – discretion to award costs not to be exercised in a way which may discourage individuals from bringing claims.

HRA – plaintiff self-represented – two day hearing – claim dismissed – not an appropriate case for costs – good faith not seriously challenged – fragile state of health – plaintiff in need of understanding and compassion.

PA – plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – finding that he had clearly and egregiously breached the standards to be expected of a litigant and therefore to be denied a declaration – successful defendant incurred fees of $17,540.84 plus disbursements of $644.67 but indemnity costs not sought – defendant sought $8,560 and disbursements of $644.67.

PA – plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – finding that plaintiff had pursued tactics to ensure proceedings as difficult and protracted as he could make them – rejection of reasonable and responsible settlement offer – successful defendant incurred fees of $25,268.63 plus disbursements of $502.23 but indemnity costs not sought – defendant sought $13,130 and disbursements of $502.23.

PA – plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – MBIE represented by in-house litigation solicitor – $5,000 sought as a reasonable contribution – indemnity costs could have been justified but were not sought – a clear case in which increased costs were justified - $5,000 possibly too modest.

PA – plaintiff self-represented – did not appear at the hearing – defendant represented by in-house litigation solicitor – $2,500 sought as a reasonable contribution – indemnity costs could have been justified but were not sought – a clear case in which increased costs were justified - $2,500 possibly too modest.

HRA (appeal filed 13 March 2014; appeal discontinued on 9 June 2014) – plaintiff represented by Director of Human Rights Proceedings – three day hearing – plaintiff awarded declaration together with damages of $25,000. Restraining and training orders made against defendants – no particular circumstances of complexity and significance – Director sought average award of $3,750 per day.

PA – five day hearing – each party enjoying a measure of success and of failure – plaintiffs seeking $2,000 (actual $23,000) and defendant seeking between $7,500 and $10,000 – procedural history discounted as each side bore a measure of blame– novel point of some significance in the administration of the immigration legislation – analogy with public interest litigation pursued reasonably.

HRA – plaintiff represented by Director of Human Rights Proceedings – four day hearing – plaintiff successful in every respect – two Calderbank offers by Director should have been accepted – evidence produced in support of defence fell well short of satisfying the civil standard of proof – Director seeking $13,125.00 hearing fee, $3,689.12 travel and accommodation costs for counsel in Invercargill and $812.00 travel costs for witness.

HRA – plaintiff represented by Director of Human Rights Proceedings – one day hearing – plaintiff successful in every respect – defendants did not participate in or attend hearing. [Decision set aside on 2 June 2015 and re-hearing ordered]

PA – defendant on legal aid – hearing 2.5 days – plaintiff successful in every respect – claim of $3,937.50 for pre-legal aid period and a “but for legal aid” order for $8,257.90 sought for legal aid period.

Costs refused and “but for legal aid” order refused (9 September 2015)

HRA – plaintiff represented – four day hearing – plaintiff unsuccessful – claim by defendant of $45,000 as a contribution to actual costs amounting to $155,839.89 (inclusive of disbursements of $27,437.44)

PA – plaintiff self-represented – one day hearing in Hokitika – plaintiff unsuccessful – claim by defendant of $4,000 as a contribution to actual costs of $26,000 (exclusive of disbursements) – plaintiff advising that three months prior to the hearing he was adjudicated bankrupt – costs application withdrawn

Application withdrawn but Tribunal would have awarded $4,000 (5 October 2017)

PA – two day hearing – each party enjoying a measure of success – defendant made offer without prejudice except as to costs – effect of offer – plaintiff successful on substantive point – claim for $10,000 as a contribution to actual costs of $30,114.31

HRA – plaintiff self-represented – claim struck out – no foundation to the claim and it was also a collateral attack on decisions of the High Court and Family Court – D1 (Attorney-General) seeking $4,000 (actual $11,991) – one set of costs principle